The internet has killed print journalism. This is both good and bad.

1) The days when news was channeled through a few point of view are now over. As a small child, I remember there being 3 and later 4 network news outlets on TV and maybe a local station depending on what city I happened to be in (WGN in Chicago, for example). Print media was generally restricted to a small number of major regional papers and maybe the NYT, WaPo or the incredibly vapid USAToday. All of these outlets claimed to be fair and to present multiple;tiple points of view, as they had to under the then existing Fairness Doctrine. They weren't really. They'd offer perspectives from Republicans and Democrats. They entirely ignored the perspectives of anti-capitalists of every variety. News stories that conflicted with the financial interests of the shareholders were simply not reported upon. The fall of the Fairness Doctrine did not bring an expansion of the set. It merely led to an amplification of existing perspectives within the set. Thus came the genesis of Fox News, the Washington Times, etc. The old line outlets promoted their image as the grand old statesmen of the journalistic world, the mature voices of reason who stood above the fray. Despite this condescending poo poo of perspectives that did not reflect existed elected parties at the time, these grandee papers such as the Seattle Times offered very conservative positions such as supporting Lon Mabon's quest to prevent gay people from becoming school teachers in the 1990's. Most news media outlets beginning with 60 Minutes evolution;lved into entertainment rather than factual delivery.

2) An entire profession is rapidly dying. State repression was incapable of killing the free press, despite its numerous attempts. Politicians since the colonial era have hated the press passionately, and yet could not risk denying them access, since doing so would be a sign of untrustworthiness. People who grew up reading Gary Webb or Leonard and Bernstein dreamt of saving the Republic by exposing political corruption.Those dreams will go unfulfilled. There will be no journalists in a few decades.

3) In spite of this, journalism is now decentralized. We are all now journalists. A good camera capable of capturing raw feed is no longer prohibitively expensive or so bulky as two be impractical. Capturing political wrongdoing is now more a matter of vading than of having the right equipment. many websites will gladly publish whatever you capture.

what is 'vading'?

Short version: We're gonna do what everybody else is doing now: reprinting Tweets.

Sounds like they're saying their high-minded vision is: we'll do more clickbait and use that to subsidize some quality journalism.

I don't hear a plan to make their quality journalism pay its own way, though. Which means it will inevitably be whittled away under financial pressure.

@2,

Vading is the art of going places you're not supposed to be and not getting caught. Parkour is the art of evasion. Vading is the art of invasion.

For example, let's say in your many walks around the city you find a structure with lots of "Keep Out" signs everywhere, security cameras, etc. You want to go in there and see what's going on. So, you figure out how to get in without the cameras seeing you or leaving any obvious signs of entry. Maybe you pickpocket an employee badge. Maybe you find s steam tunnel entrance under a manhole. Maybe you just walk very gingerly around the spots the cameras can see.

"reporters will also be expected to do more shorter stories (like the "short, trendy posts" the paper has started publishing online in the morning) and to aggregate stories from other sites"

So their plan is to become Buzzfeed? Sigh. I was hoping the plan would be more focus on quality, in-depth local journalism and jettisoning the clickbait and aggregating, but that of course would probably mean the Times' fiscal doom in this year, and not five or ten years from now.

They plan to become the P-I, basically. The P-I does still have a reporter or two.

How'd you like to be a Junior Blethen, watching a billion dolllars slip through the trust fund because Crazy Uncle Frank can't operate at the pace of time. Really, 2017 is when you're going to be more urgent and more productive? Not in 1996, or 1999? Not it 2010? Of the collapse of 2007? NOW you're going to do it?

Jesus.

They are in the print journalism death spiral. I subscribe to the Times but with their last price increase will probably cancel them. The have lost a major revenue source, classifieds, due mainly to Craigslist, and are transferring that lost revenue to subscribers. Their price increases have become too substantial, and far too frequent.

ST has turned into an editorial. If they still had news they might be able to remain relevant.